Section 205

This provision continues a long-standing feature of Indian criminal procedure (earlier found in Section 194 of the CrPC, 1973) that gives State Governments administrative flexibility to manage the workload and geography of sessions courts. Districts can face situations like judge shortages, sensitive or high-profile cases needing transfer for safety or fairness, or logistical convenience — this section allows the executive to redirect trials across sessions divisions without needing fresh legislation each time, while still respecting the higher judiciary's authority to control such matters when it has already spoken.

Courts have generally treated this power as an administrative, not judicial, function of the State Government, meant to ensure smooth working of the sessions courts rather than to influence the outcome of any particular trial. Judicial precedents under the analogous CrPC provision emphasized that this power must be used for arranging judicial business efficiently and not to handpick a forum to benefit either the prosecution or the defence. The proviso has been read as a safeguard ensuring the executive's administrative directions never override or conflict with judicial orders on jurisdiction or transfer already passed by constitutional courts.

• Myth: This provision lets the State Government interfere with an ongoing trial's outcome or verdict.
  Fact: It only allows administrative redirection of *where* a case is tried, not any control over how it's judged or decided.
• Myth: The State Government can override any High Court or Supreme Court direction using this power.
  Fact: The proviso explicitly bars the government from acting against directions already issued by these constitutional courts.